The Wilmingtonian., 1887-02-19
A. Battle of Legal Giants.

the Superior Court has been under consld.
Grafton.
As most of our citizens may be aware the
case referred to is Ferris Giles versus the
Diamond State Rolling Mill Company. IL
July, 1885 building under course of er. O.
tion by the Diamond State Iron Company fell
burrying in its ruins, scores Of workingmen
employed on and about the building. Among
the debris were found two men fatally in
iured and several more or less severely iDjur-
ed.
Ferris Giles, one Of those gravely injured
was represented by Messrs. Bird and Gray
and the defendant company had their inter
ests guarded by Messrs. Bates, Bradford and
Lore. This grand array of legal talent sug-
gested the Importance of the case and as q
natural consequence the Court House was
daily crowded to watch its issue.
Levi Bird, ESQ, opened for the
plaintiff and he brought out altogether too
clearly for the comfort of the defence that the
walls of the demolished building were not
only structurally weak but that the defendant
company, for reasons only known to them,
selves, employed man to draw the plans OF
their bu lding who had no knowledge Of that
line of work, but whose legitimate business
was that of mechanical drawing as applied
exclusively to machinery, The novice
draughtsman was an employee of the Com
pauy and the contractors and builders were
told to 'tfolow" the plans and specifications
1t appeared in the evidence as submitted
by Mr., Simpson, the contractor, that he
suggested to the defendant company, that
the wall was inherently weak and that it
should be strengthened, by additional width
being given the wall Mr.. Enos also testi-
fed that he was so impressed with the dan.
ger Of the wall that he modestly suggested
to some members of the defendant company
that he wished that the company would Or
der the wall to be increased in width-but
defendants in this case, said 'build the wall
according to our plans and specifications, 7"
and the building was so constructed.
Mr.. Bird fortified the cause of the plaintiff
by calling almost the entire corps Of builders
aud contractors in this city who, without
exception, testified that wall $50 feet in
length, 81 feet in height, inches in width,
save the pilasters interspersed at certain in
absolutely dangerous and Furthermore that
the danger was intensified by having the
side of the building opposite the brick wall
constructed of frame WORK that is, build
ing with one side brick and the opposing
aide frame must have the brick wall mater
tally heavier than would be necessary were
both walls OF brick.
1t is a well-known principle of mechanics
that the vibratory force of wooden struc-
lures is more marked than that of one con
structed of either brick or stone.
Who will deny that wooden building
can be disturbed beyond its centre of gravity
and yet upon a cessation of the disturbing
agency said building will resume perpendi.
cularity, but with an extensive building
where one side is brick and the other timber
unless the brick wall should be inordinately
thick from the foundation up, the vibratory
character of the frame work superndueed
by the elements would be found, sooner o,
later, to disturb the perpendioularity of til,
brick wall and then ensure demolition o
said building. These were the facts disclos
ed by the witnesses for the plaintiff and upoI
which the plaintiff largely rested his case
Upon the announcement by Mr.. Bird tina
the cause of his client was before the Cour
MIR. Bradford arose and demanded that {
non-suit be declared by the Court, basin!
his claim upon two reasons viz, that the re
lation of the plaintiff and defendant wer
that of servant and master and that the ser
want had the equal opportunities of the mas
ter in knowing and appreciating whateve
imperfections there might have been in tn
construction of the building upon which h
was working, and that the plaintiff coul
not recover because of this knowledge-thi
knowledge being construed into contribl
tory relation to the case and as contribute
to the injury he should be without standiu
in the court.
It was painfully evident from the yer
commencement of the argument for no
suit that the defendant Company had a Il
bored contract on his hands in its efforts
obtain nOn-suit Mr.. Bird oppose
the motion for nor-suit and
made rema kably strong presentation
his side Of the case He admitted witho
questioning the relation Of master and ser
ant in this case, but denied Mr.. Bradford
proposition that the servant Mr.. Giles, bt
equal opportunities with the MASTER Il
Diamond State Manufacturing Company, f
knowing and estimating the imperfectiol
aud dangers OF the building upon which
was working
Iuasmuch as the plans and speciGcato
,rern In thn hands of tha dernndant cnmnAl